Nomgcobo Jiba to fight leave to appeal application

Deputy National Prosecuting Authority head, Advocate Nomgcobo Jiba during a media briefing on August 18, 2015 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Jiba finally spoke out on the fraud and perjury charges against that were brought against by the NPA. The charges were withdrawn yesterday.
Photo: Gallo Images / Beeld / Cornel van Heerden).

Majavu said earlier that Jiba had initially asked to be placed on special leave while the SCA matter was pending.

Jiba and Mrwebi were struck from the roll of advocates on September 15, 2016, after Judge Francis Legodi in the High Court agreed with the GCB that they were “not fit and proper” to be advocates.

The case went to the SCA in Bloemfontein and last week the Appeal Court ruled in favour of Jiba and Mrwebi.

The judgment was split among five judges – three ruled in favour of Jiba and Mrwebi and the others disagreed and gave a dissenting judgment.

In the majority judgment, authored by Appeal Court Judge Jeremiah Shongwe, the SCA found that the GCB could not establish any misconduct on Jiba’s part.

The court found that the High Court had misdirected itself in striking Mrwebi from the roll and that it failed to consider why suspension was not an appropriate sanction.

The High Court ruling followed Jiba’s and Mrwebi’s decision to drop charges against former Crime Intelligence head Richard Mdluli, who faced several charges.

The SCA said, when the High Court gave its ruling, it described Mdluli and detailed his personality. It also characterised him in an “egregious manner, as if he was already convicted of the allegations against him”.

“This characterisation, in my view, negatively influenced the court a quo’s evaluation of the way Jiba and Mrwebi handled the Mdluli case,” Shongwe wrote.

He said the High Court had referred to a letter Mdluli had written to former president Jacob Zuma, the Minister of Safety and Security and the police commissioner, which stated that the charges brought against him were a conspiracy.

“I was unable to glean the relevance of quoting from the said letter. In my view, the content of the letter was far-fetched and did not establish whether Jiba was a fit and proper person to practise as an advocate.”

He also criticised the High Court’s finding that Jiba and Mrwebi did not only bring the prosecuting authority and legal profession into disrepute but had also brought the office of the President of the Republic of South Africa into disrepute after they failed to prosecute Mdluli.

“Surely this is irrelevant and cannot be a good reason singularly or cumulatively to remove an advocate from the roll.”

Shongwe added: “The difference of opinion should not and cannot fairly be considered sufficient to conclude that Jiba is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of advocates.

“Perhaps one may infer some form of incompetence with regard to her duties, which may be a ground to remove her from being the [Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions], but not sufficient enough to be removed from the roll of advocates.”

Turning to Mrwebi, he found that he “genuinely, did not comprehend what the concept ‘in consultation’ meant”. However, the concessions he made under cross-examination indicated that he was at most, confused.

“As regards to Mrwebi, I am of the considered view that the court a quo treated him harshly. Mrwebi, notwithstanding his misconduct, did not personally gain anything from his actions.

“His failure to comprehend the concept of ‘in consultation’, in my view should perhaps be attributed to his incompetence or naivety rather than his honesty and lack thereof.”